posted at 6:05 pm on December 30, 2011 by Tina Korbe

It was Peggy Noonan who suggested that, especially during difficult economic times, voters look for a father figure, which Barack Obama decidedly is not. (He’s the “bright, lost older brother,” she wrote.) Noonan thought Romney just might be the GOP candidate who most evokes the father figures in 1950s and 1960s sitcoms that, in her words, “terrorized and comforted a generation of children from non-functioning families.”

If Romney managed to convey that impression even before his sons started to stump for him, then their presence on the campaign trail can only enhance the image of Romney as a wise, stable head-of-the-household — because, unlike Huntsman’s daughters, Romney’s sons are not snarky or silly, but down-to-earth, sincere and relatable. Yesterday, four of the five Romney sons (the fifth was absent only because he’s in the midst of his medical residency) met with Republican voters at a coffee shop in New Hampshire. What they had to say about their father was fresh and encouraging. Reuters reports:

The boys stuck mostly to the campaign playbook of emphasizing the candidate’s record as a businessman, having rescued the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and run the neighboring state of Massachusetts as governor.

As children in Belmont, Massachusetts, the boys said they learned not to leave the tap water running too long, or they would get a rebuke from their father, who was in the process of building the venture capital powerhouse Bain Capital.

“Congress would learn pretty quickly that they’re not going to get money from my dad either,” Josh Romney said. …

“My dad’s image couldn’t be further from the truth,” said Matt Romney, 40, who works at a real estate investment trust in San Diego. “If you see him in other settings, he’s the most fun guy out there. He’s always joking around.”

It’s undoubtedly a sign of my wide-eyed optimism that I often fall for campaign gimmicks — from Herman Cain singing “Impossible Dream” to Jon Huntsman’s vamping at the keyboards to this — but it does seem to me that Romney’s case that, as a person at least, he has lived consistently and conservatively continues to acquire greater credibility. I first began to follow Josh Romney on Twitter when somebody retweeted a tweet of his that included a picture of his dad and mom sitting in a couple of hotel armchairs in advance of a GOP debate. When I looked at the picture, I felt an overpowering sense of comfort. Here was a familiar scene. How many times — in advance of some event — has my dad, in button-down shirt and jeans (which happened to be what Romney was wearing in the picture), sat across from mom in a little hotel sitting area, talking about this or that idea? Does any of this make Mitt Romney politically other than he has always been? Of course not. But his sons’ presence on the trail reminds me that we have and could do worse than to nominate him or any of this year’s supposedly “weak” GOP candidates.

Pointing out that Romney is a good family man is not a stealthy way to exclude all other candidates. It is just a positive trait he has that transcends, or should transcend, any other complaints anyone can have of him.

I have nothing against Mitt’s money. I’ve made some money in my day too. I wish everyone could make as much money as him. But the optics are horrible for Willard and he’s exacerbating the very negative stereotype he should be trying like hell to avoid. It would be like Obama releasing a video of him hanging out with Bill Ayres or a Bush video showing him kicking it old school with Texas oil tycoons.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 9:49 PM

This is a good comment, because it tries to look at reality as it is instead of starting from a position that Person X is good/bad. The people flinging trash on both sides in this thread could learn from your example.

My take is that Mitt has played into the left’s hands several times in the past few months. He doesn’t seem to always understand when he is saying or doing something that will come across to the vast majority of Americans as being a little out of touch. There is no reason to expect that he won’t make a mistake or two on this front once he becomes the nominee. It’s a problem, but I do think he’s getting pretty good advice in this area, because he’s not doing it as often as one might otherwise expect. Still, it doesn’t take many offenses given the fact that the media is perfectly willing to blow each instance out of proportion.

It certainly never hurt Mitt that his dad was wealthy and a political leader.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 1:40 AM

and…your point is???… that he should have reneged his father for having been a successful man? like, seriously, people, it’s ok to vent vent your own frustrations, but it’s not ok to bot see the absurdity of some of your stances and /or statements. How is Mitt’s fault that his father was a rich and successful man, more (or less) than some person’s whose father was a looser and/or a junky? like, do you even think before coming up with platitudes/ridiculous stuff like : ‘certainly it never hurt Mitt that his dad was wealthy and a political leader.’ Well, duh, it certainly didn’t hurt him….in the same line of ‘argument’: the sky is blue (and that didn’t hurt anybody either, btw),can you do anything about it??…can he??… change the fact that his dad was rich/successful (and why should he??)…

Sure it is, but that does not diminish the fact that they have to get the same grades as all other students in order to pass.The most important thing to realize is that life lessons learned are the same for the wealthy and the poor alike. Lessons like work ethic, honesty, faith, compassion, etc. are not different because a parent is poor.

My point is, we may not be dealing with a probably Romney nomimination if he wasn’t a politician’s son.

Good gravy. Well, there goes any credibility you had a chance of having.

He’s a fortunate one. Why deny it? I’m not saying he needs to apologize for it.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 1:58 AM

No, you’re just trying to disparage him because of his fathers success.

His father came from poor immigrants and rose to be a candidate for POTUS. It is entirely more likely that Mitt Romney is where he is because his father taught him the same set of values that made him the success he was.

However. What’s your definition of ‘loser?’ I was talking specifically about the fact that there are more opportunities for success in this country at this time than ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.

I grew up anything but wealthy. Went to the poorest HS in our city. But our family was close & we had parents who taught us the value of hard work & studying. They had 4 sons. They now have 4 successful sons who have all risen to a place financially that they never dreamed of.

Also, why do I work as hard as I do? To give my kids the best opportunities. I promise there’s no guarantees that they’ll be successful, but our decision to teach them about hard work & personal responsibility are going to be more important to their success than the fact that they never have to worry about going hungry.

In 1 generation our entire family has become financially successful where there was none before. This country isn’t built on a zero sum economy.

That’s what America’s all about. It should be celebrated, not used as a point of derision in your political arguments.

His father came from poor immigrants and rose to be a candidate for POTUS. It is entirely more likely that Mitt Romney is where he is because his father taught him the same set of values that made him the success he was.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 AM

My understanding is that Romney is a lot like his dad…a shifty, flip flopping politician.

Maybe this is idealistic, but I like to think people run for office on their true convictions, win or lose.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 AM

It is idealistic, but that isn’t always bad. In politics it is a recipe for failure. This country is so divided that no one person can take a position that everyone will agree with. So, they all take both sides of some issues just so they can get elected. Then, HOPEFULLY, we elect a person who has solid core values and governs accordingly.

I grant that Romney is a gamble, but Obama is a known. I think it’s best we go with someone who honors his campaign promises. If he is promising he will do his part in repealing Obamacare, I see nothing in his record of promises that leads me to believe that he is lying.

Conservatives are angry that a moderate with no conservative accomplishments is proably going to be our nominee b/c we have no primary run-off.

Those lashing out at Palin were almost always personally attacking her.

Yet those same people are lecturing us about hate and calling us Romney haters.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Both Palin and Romney are flawed to the point where they are unlikely to ever be President. Besides that similarity, they are polar opposites, so I understand why the two groups of supporters would clash so harshly. Maybe someday they can join hands and reminisce about their losses.

Romney has too much money to sympathize with your average America. This man has never had a negative or a zero bank account number in his life. He does not feel my pain. He is the 1%. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth

Romney just wants the power and he doesn’t care how he gets there. I don’t think that’s a good example for young folk.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 2:11 AM

and how the heck do you know that ‘he just wants the power’, do you inhabit his head, or obsessively live in his head most of the time? also, how do you know that Gingrich or anybody from the GOP presidential field doesn’t want ‘just the power and doesn’t care how he gets there’? …do you have a meter for that? so far Gingrich is the perfect definition of a politician who really ‘doesn’t care how he gets there’…

and how the heck do you know that ‘he just wants the power’, do you inhabit his head, or obsessively live in his head most of the time? also, how do you know that Gingrich or anybody from the GOP presidential field doesn’t want ‘just the power and doesn’t care how he gets there’? …do you have a meter for that? so far Gingrich is the perfect definition of a politician who really ‘doesn’t care how he gets there’…

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 2:49 AM

If Romney was in it to implement his vision for America, he’d … wait for it … have a vision for America. Instead, his “vision” consists of whatever he thinks that the people in front of him want to hear at any particular moment.

With the possible exception of the health care mandate, which he really seems to love – and somehow the one thing that we want done (reapealing Obamacare) is his top priority! Right!

I don’t want Romney to feel my pain. I want him and other pols to stay out of my medical decisions and my bank account, etc.
Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

do you live in MA? Then shut up already! The majority of MA people wanted the romneycare, as long as you are not a citizen of that state, you have no right to blabber and complain about it. he said it times and again, that romneycare was ok for MA, but not ok to mandate healthcare at the fed level. he served the citizens of the state he was a governor of, and he did so in an exemplary manner. so get over it already…if you are so dense as not to see the difference between the state and fed levels, that is your problem…

Romney was in it to implement his vision for America, he’d … wait for it … have a vision for America.
besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 2:55 AM

jeez, and who the heck do you think he is, some sort of a prophet? ‘Vision for America’, what the heck does that mean anyways…this sounds dumb and ridiculous, what we need is a pragmatic leader, and that’s what exactly Romney is… this idiocy with ‘vision for America’, get this into your head, America is just a country, like any other, our leaders’ main concern should be the competition with China and other soon to be top tier countries that are coming strongly from behind, Brazil, India etc, and not some idiotic, prophetic ‘vision of America’…all you need is a plan, and a pragmatic one at it, not a ‘vision’….a president isn’t (and shouldn’t be expected to be) a ‘witch’, or crystal gazer, or prophet, as I said…

as long as you are not a citizen of that state, you have no right to blabber and complain about it. he said it times and again, that romneycare was ok for MA, but not ok to mandate healthcare at the fed level. he served the citizens of the state he was a governor of, and he did so in an exemplary manner. so get over it already…if you are so dense as not to see the difference between the state and fed levels, that is your problem…

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 2:56 AM

Are you insane? He is running for President of the United States and that is his signature achievement. No right to discuss it? Did you bump your head?

And Romney considers the mandate “fundamentally conservative”. That indicates to me that he has no clue what “conservative” means and doesn’t give me much confidence in what he’d do with it at the federal level. (I don’t give a rip about what Heritage said – and neither did Romney. Just because Heritage says something doesn’t make it right or conservative – they have a fairly good track record, but certainly not on this.)

The fact that it was done at the state level doesn’t, all of a sudden, make it good policy. It is statist policy at the state level. It is statist level at the federal level. It is worse at the federal level, but that doesn’t mean that it is totally cool at the state level.

And if it was/is so darn popular, why was Romney afraid to run for reelection and why did his Republican success take a beating worse than Santorum?

all you need is a plan, and a pragmatic one at it, not a ‘vision’….a president isn’t (and shouldn’t be expected to be) a ‘witch’, or crystal gazer, or prophet, as I said…

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 3:05 AM

You’re really hinging a lot of your argument on the term “vision” aren’t you? Well, let me tell you, if Romney had an actual “plan” for America, he should have a “vision” for where that gets us. If he doesn’t, what is the point of the “plan”? He has a plan, but has no idea where it gets us? That’s a winning argument.

he fact that it was done at the state level doesn’t, all of a sudden, make it good policy. It is statist policy at the state level. It is statist level at the federal level. It is worse at the federal level, but that doesn’t mean that it is totally cool at the state level.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

if the people of MA want that, it is their RIGHT to get what they want, and yes, it makes it ok to implement said policies at the state level. The beauty of our system is that if you are a minority in MA and don’t like what the majority want/like, you can move to another state. I live in CA, and most people here want statist policies, do I like it? NO, but what can I do? I have the option to move, but I choose not to, coz I love the climate, I have a great job and there are other tonnes of advantages for me and my family. So, I made my calculations and I chose to stay and put up with the liberal policies that are so popular here. From a demographic standpoint it’s a lost battle for us, it doesn’t matter if I go and vote against the ‘statist’ policies, people here LIKE these sort of policies and they elect the people who will implement them. But I know that I have the choice to move to another state. This is the fundamental difference that you do not seem to be able to grasp between state and fed level.

if the people of MA want that, it is their RIGHT to get what they want, and yes, it makes it ok to implement said policies at the state level.

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

It is? It is the right of the people to get what they want? Interesting. My 2 year old will be excited by this news.

And how do we know that the people wanted what Romney signed into law? Didn’t he say that he “fought” for this version over some more liberal versions? How do you know the people didn’t want the more liberal versions? If the did, wasn’t it their right to get it?

And if Romney was so busy implementing all of the things that the people of MA wanted, why was he so afraid to run for reelection? They should have loved him if he was merely serving as a conduit for implementing their every want.

Romney just follows the masses and implements what they want? He has no plan of his own? This all sounds an awful lot like “leading from behind”.

But I know that I have the choice to move to another state. This is the fundamental difference that you do not seem to be able to grasp between state and fed level.

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

How is bad policy all of a sudden good just because it is done at the state level? It is bad policy. Period. Is it worse at the federal level? Yes. That doesn’t absolve Romney from implementing nearly the same policies (across the board) as governor as Obama has done as President.

And I gotta tell you, it is unusual for someone to argue that we should support his preferred candidate because his candidate is so spineless and unprincipled that he will implement any policy that he happens to believe that the people at any given time “want”.

It is? It is the right of the people to get what they want? Interesting. My 2 year old will be excited by this news.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 3:31 AM

:-) your analogy is really preposterous, no clue about your 2 year old, but sure he/she does not think or act like an adult, does he? If they did they’d be allowed to vote, no? I hope you do not compare your 2-year old with fully developed adults with a legal right to vote? but then I am sure you probably do, which render all this conversation superfluous…

because his candidate is so spineless and unprincipled that he will implement any policy that he happens to believe that the people at any given time “want”.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 3:38 AM

nonsense…it’s called pragmatism…I’d take a pragmatic leader any time of the day, a person who is versatile, capable of changing and compromising as required, to some stuck up, narrow-minded (or single-minded) so-called ‘principled’ individual…I prefer versatility to intransigence, and this is what I expect from a politician…Convictions, they sure are important, to a certain extent, but the reality is they change, only a simpleton, a person lacking in complexity doesn’t change at all during their lifetime (their views, ideas, etc) as a result of various and diverse experiences… Instinctively I do not trust people who have not experienced changes in their lives, and as a result have not changed themselves and their ‘convictions’…they are either hypocrites who won’t admit said changes, or dumb/unaware or in denial…

.And I gotta tell you, it is unusual for someone to argue that we should support his preferred candidate because his candidate is so spineless and unprincipled that he will implement any policy that he happens to believe that the people at any given time “want”.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 3:38 AM

you are hilarious…when have I argued that you should support ‘my candidate’??? I couldn’t care less who you vote for, never pleaded with you that you vote for X or Y candidate, I am only concerned with who I vote for… not sure you got the memo, but it’s a free country and you vote the way you want…I made my choice, can’t say that I am too concerned with who you vote for…

I read Hugh Hewitt’s book about Romney when it first came out. It was written from the standpoint of an evangelical looking at the man and asking the questions he knew others would ask. He came across quite impressed. And he discussed this very point after interviewing Mitt’s sons. Those who get their information from anti-Romney websites and virulent anti-Mormon screeds won’t believe me or Hugh, but one thing that impressed me most was his description of how Romney approached the job of advising clients of Bain & Co. First he studied the business until until he knew everything about it, how it worked, the market, the competitors, the minutia, etc. Then he analyzed the companies to determine where they were weak or had opportunities to improve their balance sheets. This is a process that doesn’t happen on a debate stage, and it involves a lot of consulting with others involved in the enterprise, explaining his conclusions and persuading them to take the appropriate actions.

Perhaps that’s why he’s so reluctant to say just which measures he will apply. He knows that the president is not a king. He can’t order Congress to do his will. It’s a process of persuasion, discussions and leadership. I don’t worry about him cutting spending because he has done so repeated through his career and found ways to accomplish goals with less money.

He can’t order Congress to do his will. It’s a process of persuasion, discussions and leadership. I don’t worry about him cutting spending because he has done so repeated through his career and found ways to accomplish goals with less money.

flataffect on December 31, 2011 at 3:58 AM

most people here can’t seem to understand that…they instinctively hate and dislike a ‘despotic’/strong-willed/intransigent individual in the role of president if they are from the other side/camp, but they seem to imply that it’s ok if not desirable to have an individual with said traits as president as long as he/she’s from ‘our’ side/camp…infantile and immature really…

Noonan… the same off-the-rails bimbo that destroyed every shred of credibility that she ever had or ever will had by her loving support of all things Rino and of course, King Barry Hussein, who, in this poster’s opinion, she had an oral fixation on.

As far as I am concerned, her endorsement of Mitt-y-poo-poo is the black plagued kiss of death. Not that the leper particularly needed any help being less palatable mind you.

Amen. Gov. Romney may not be people’s first choice, but he is, nevertheless, a very good candidate. He has the social and political tools to re-design our government. Oftentimes, a man rises to the occassion and I think Gov. Romney may do just that, shocking many armchair analysts. As to his flip-flopping: anyone who says their views have been set in stone from the beginning is being less than truthful.

Honestly, I am unable to make up my mind here – do I punch my CRT or vomit up my supper? Perhaps I can compromise, and throw up a little in my mouth and smash my face against my keyboard.

We can all agree that Obama is 10x more flawed than either of them could ever be & he’s president. So there’s more to it than that.

mattshu on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

No we can’t. Really.

For some of the horrible candidates we have running… I will just stay home, or only vote for house/senate/local pols. I won’t pull a lever for Newt, Huntsman, Paul, or Perry. I probably could “live” with Bachman or Santorum. They ain’t ideal.

But Ken-Doll?

No way. Especially after how they are trying so desperately to stuff him down our throats, digging dirt, working with lib outfits like politico, and monkeying around with the primary dates. Mitt-Doll will result in a vote to PUNISH the republican establishment for sticking a long shiv in conservatives backs, and twisting it.

The RINOS shriek that we are all insignificant, and don’t deserve any representation. God knows I have collected well over 100 examples of this in less than 2 weeks.

We will see who is right come November. In my experience, every one person mad enough to step up and say something is indicative of many multiples more enraged people who are holding their tongue.

In reading the comments–pro/con Romney, I am really starting to be put off by the tone of many of them. When I first began visiting HA several years ago, I found the comments to be informative and thoughtful. I didn’t always agree with points of view taken, but I always felt enlightened. It seems as though the comments are degenerating in value, so much name calling and bickering, it is beginning to drain my spirit for HA. When push comes to shove, most of us are on the same page. If we can’t treat each other with civility, how do we expect society, as a whole, to treat each other?

With that said, it is onward and upward, with the indomitable spirit of America filling our hearts.

I don’t really see the parallel of being a cheapskate at home and having the ability to handle the problems of the federal government. Telling your sons to shut off the tap water is thrifty, yes, but what is thrift to the spendthrift government and Congress? They are spending your money, not their own.

What are the luxuries that Mitt and his wife cut out of the family to economize? And not just the ‘shut the water off’ sort but the sort where a category of the family budget, entertainment, say, was just removed and each of them told to live with the things they already have? The problem at the federal level isn’t a thrift issue, that of making all the parts run well as they are not designed to run well in the first place and in the second when they are not granted by the Constitution they are a luxury. DoD comes under the Armies and the Navies concept, mentioned in the Constitution, the EPA, FDA, Labor, Agriculture, Education, Energy and a whole raft of others do not.

Yes Bain dismembered companies, that is part of the capitalist system when companies get overgrown and need to be cut down, parts shut off and sold off piecemeal and otherwise doing the hard but necessary decision-making to say ‘this just doesn’t work, isn’t required and must go’. Where is THAT Mitt Romney? We never see HIM talked about or hear from HIM on the campaign trail. Where is the guy who can dismember an organization in a cold and calculated way so as to pare it down to something that works? THAT Mitt Romney I would VOTE FOR, but he disappeared as soon as this Mitt Romney decided to become a political animal. If the Mitt Romney of the cold, heartless and calculating company slicere and dicer had shown up for this primary he would get my wholehearted support… but then he would have done that same cutting to MA, not enhanced it with a mandate and made its parts ‘thrifty’ by cost shifting via ‘revenue enhancement’ in the way of ‘user’s fees’, while ignoring that such fees already are paid in this thing called ‘taxes’.

I don’t want the ‘thrift’ of a government less costly at the top and more costly at the bottom where one has to pay for services that they have already paid for by supporting the government via taxes. That isn’t ‘thrift’ it is chicanery and done with other people’s money, at that. I wish that Mitt Romney the capitalist who can dismember dysfunctional organizations was the one that decided to become a politician… him I could back. This other guy? I don’t trust him because of his record and his support of the idea that any government should be able to tell you how to spend your money and on what.

I am not a fan of Mitt, by any stretch, and I agree with ajacksonian. Mitt is considerably better running as a capitalist than a politician. I respect the business side of Romney, the political side leaves much to be desired. He wants to be all things to all people, that just is not realistic. But put him in front of a spreadsheet, I’ll take him hands down over any other candidate. I wish Mitt would decide WHO he wants to be. Perhaps that is why people perceive him to have no core values, political Mitt is vastly different from capitalist Mitt.

If Romney was in it to implement his vision for America, he’d … wait for it … have a vision for America. Instead, his “vision” consists of whatever he thinks that the people in front of him want to hear at any particular moment.

With the possible exception of the health care mandate, which he really seems to love – and somehow the one thing that we want done (reapealing Obamacare) is his top priority! Right!

Have you read his 153 page economic plan he posted a few months ago on his website? It’s pretty definitive and easily referenced.

So there you have it: hedge-fund titans, i-bankers, congressional nabobs, committee chairmen, senators, swindlers, run-of-the-mill politicos, and a few outright thieves (these categories are not necessarily exclusive) all feeding at the same trough, and most of them betting that Mitt Romney won’t do anything more to stop it than Barack Obama did. If anything, the fact that Romney is having the least luck with the firm that knows him best speaks better of him than does the enthusiasm he apparently inspires in Goldman Sachs et al.

Either way, the last thing Wall Street wants is for the Corzine scandal to launch a new round of frenzied outrage out there on the fruited plains where dwell people who don’t know an IPO from a CDS, and who might suspect that something here is not entirely on the up-and-up. They’re hoping that conservatives can be buffaloed with a bit of cheap free-market rhetoric into not noticing that something is excruciatingly amiss here. They are the repo men, headpiece filled with subprime-mortgage derivatives, and they are looking to repossess the Republican party they abandoned in 2008 (see “Losing Gordon Gekko,” National Review, March 9, 2009). Free-market, limited-government conservatives should be none too eager to welcome them back, nor should we let our natural sympathy with the profit motive blind us to the fact that a great many of them do not belong in the conservative movement, and that more than a few of them belong in prison.

Romney has too much money to sympathize with your average America. This man has never had a negative or a zero bank account number in his life. He does not feel my pain. He is the 1%. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth

liberal4life on December 31, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Second, when massively wealthy people like Romney are personally cheap, that is very, very bad reflection on their personal character.

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 6:42 AM

Go occupy pepper spray, commies!

Frugality is as important a virtue for the wealthy as it is for the poor. Wealth without frugality becomes decadence.

With the possible exception of the health care mandate, which he really seems to love – and somehow the one thing that we want done (reapealing Obamacare) is his top priority! Right!

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 2:55 AM

Cite to the group some proof, any proof, that Romney supports a FEDERAL MANDATE.

OTOH, you have admitted that he doesn’t support the federal mandate in your admission that he will do his part to weaken, issue waivers, defund, and then repeal Obamacare. Additionally, Romney has an excellent record in keeping campaign promises.

My take is that Mitt has played into the left’s hands several times in the past few months. He doesn’t seem to always understand when he is saying or doing something that will come across to the vast majority of Americans as being a little out of touch…

Second, when massively wealthy people like Romney are personally cheap, that is very, very bad reflection on their personal character.

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 6:42 AM

How so? Have you ever read “The Millionaire Next Door”? Describes my parents to a T. Both were raised during the Depression, my dad’s mom (widowed) took in boarders. My dad died a millionaire through sheer hard work, the only luxuries were Catholic schools for the four of us, and a Mercedes for him–his last car, his ultimate dream. My mom has plenty of money, but still cleans her own house, shovels her driveway, never eats out….

maverick muse on December 31, 2011 at 7:31 AM

I, too, read this the other day. Made me sick to my stomach….definitely flies in the face of “my father is cheap” theme, doesn’t it? More like, “if you aren’t bleeding, get out of my way.”

What are the luxuries that Mitt and his wife cut out of the family to economize? And not just the ‘shut the water off’ sort but the sort where a category of the family budget, entertainment, say, was just removed and each of them told to live with the things they already have? ajacksonian on December 31, 2011 at 5:52 AM

I read Romeny’s economic plan… if you want an outline for keeping the crony capitalists and fat cat Wall Steet boys in charge of ripping off the taxpayers, then Romney is your man

Shorter Romney economic program: More of the same corruption in DC

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 7:20 AM

That’s not true. From his 59 point economic plan:

However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.

Romney’s experience at Bain means that he understands the truth of this at a deeper level than a poor man like myself. Just following through on this idea would eliminate much corruption in DC.

Here in America our values are being generous and charitable..so if you have been fooling yourself by thinking it is a good thing to be cheap..then maybe try reading an American history book…

Scrooge is not really an American icon

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Wow, you seem to be skating near Occupy Wall Street. Frugality and being charitable are not mutually exclusive. Frugality is first about how you spend on yourself. Frugality in charity means that you are interested in charity that works and not charity for the sake of easing your conscience. For instance, a frugal giver would seek to give to programs that get people out of poverty in preference to those that just keep feeding the same people year after year.

It doesn’t hurt that his family is attractive and sensible. We could do a lot worse. A lot worse. He’s articulate. He’s smart. He’s got executive and business experience. He’s center-right. He’s a good fit for swing states. He’s organized. What more do we want, given the field we’ve got?

It is so depressing reading comments from so-called “conservatives” around here!

Mitt Romney is a traditional conservative candidate; his values and integrity are clear. I despair when I read the idiocy coming from the lips of so-called “conservatives” who can’t wrap their pea brains around the fact that the vast majority of Americans respond to the family values, frugality and long record of fiscal experience and yes, gravitas, that Mitt Romney exemplifies.

Do you people have two brain cells to rub together to get a spark?

Do you WANT another 4 years of the most disastrous, divisive, and destructive president EVER???

GROW UP. American voters will vote for Mitt Romney in droves—yet here you are carping, complaining and criticizing the one responsible adult candidate in the race!!!

It is statist policy at the state level. It is statist level at the federal level.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 AM

Imagine me explaining this reeeeeeeeal slooooooow just for you……..

He never has supported the federal mandate because it is unconstitutional. The reason it is unconstitutional is because the states did not give the federal government the power to do so and reserved that power to the individual or the state.

The reason the mandate is constitutional in MA is because the citizens of MA gave the right to the state to implement it. Do you think you have the right to tell the citizens of MA which of their rights they can give to the state? If so, please cite the chapter and verse of any US document that gives YOU that right.

State-ism is not unconstitutional on it’s face. It certainly is not a conservative ideal.

It is reasonable to expect that Romney will have to be kept in check on some conservative issues. It is completely unreasonable to claim that he will be as bad as Obama. Romney is one thousand times better than Obama on almost every issue. His record as governor proves that. I see gun control as the biggest issue to watch him on because what he did in MA was in my view and assault on the 2nd amendment. He did get the support of gun advocacy supporters because it was a net gain against the existing strict restrictions on gun ownership in MA.

He is…….

a fiscal and economic conservative (except for minimum wage)
Pro military
against illegal immigration
issued no pardons as governor
against stem cell research
There is additional evidence if you are interested.

There is no doubt that Romney is a moderate. But his record of being a fiscal conservative will carrying to victory over Obama because as fickle as the indies are, they do vote their pocket book.

“Tim Geithner is uniquely qualified to do this job. He’s someone who is steeped in the economy and in managing crises. He’s someone who, by both temperament and experience, is well-suited for the times we’re in,” Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week.”

They all look as wimpy as their daddy.
Maybe that’s why NONE of the SIX men in the Romney family had the stones to serve their country and enlist.(and yes, I will keep beating that drum until Election Day)

We already have a wuss in the White House, we don’t need the RINO variety.
Go out and get real jobs, youngins, without your daddy’s help.

Good jab! But I think we can say that Bain’s strategy of turning businesses around requires a rare set of analytic skills. Even if Congress were populated by venture capitalists, Congress could not have those analytic skills. Romney knows this. This is why I think Romney will do well on this very narrow issue of not having the government provide capital for businesses.
The Geithner quote claims a more general competence for Geithner based on a silly notion of the uniqueness of Geithner’s experience. Anyway, I have not noticed that people good at finance have any greater understanding of how the economy works than do plumbers. For that matter, many economics professors don’t understand the most basic facts about the economy, e.g. Paul Krugman.

Bain’s strategy does not require any rare skills…they are vultures, not managers or builders of businesses. They are merely spreadsheet freaks that go in and pillage businesses so that a few investors and some senior execs can feast on the carcass while the business dies.

We will twist in the wind over our favorite candidate until it’s put up or shut up time next Nov. We need to focus on keeping the main thing the main thing and that would be making Obama a one termer. I’m still disappointed that SP isn’t running which would have given us another choice. She didn’t serve in the military, either. We had that shining example in ’08.

…NONE of the SIX men in the Romney family had the stones to serve their country and enlist.
(and yes, I will keep beating that drum until Election Day)

Karl Magnus on December 31, 2011 at 9:14 AM

And, in doing so, you will continue to look like a fool till Election Day, when Mitt Romney is elected President.

How dare you try to denegrate someone for choosing not to enlist. Someone needs to teach you that military service is not the be all and end all of what it means to be a good person and a good, patriotic American. The Romney family seems like a classy, wonderful bunch, and not one of the Romney boys sounds like a petty, moronic doofus like you do, so I’d say that you could probably learn a few things from them. They don’t owe any explanation to you or to any of the other few dozen deranged Romney haters who like to spout off on this site. Why don’t you go back to listening to whatever talk-radio-show-for-dummies you listen to and quit making a fool of yourself here by trying to insult people who choose not to enlist.